IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 03-09-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN S.A.No.643 of 1994 and Cross Objection No.83 of 1999 S.A.No.643 of 1994: Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, Neyveli-607 801. .. Appellant. Versus 1.Abdullah Rowthar 2.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by District Collector, South Arcot-Vallalar District, at Cuddalore. 3.The Special Tahsildar, No.15, Land Acquisition (L.P.) Neyveli-2, South Arcot-Vallalar District. .. Respondents.
Prayer: Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 24.8.1993, made in A.S.No.143 of 1991, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 22.4.1991, made in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif, Virudhachalam.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Nithyanandam
For Respondents : Mr.R.Subramanian (R1)
Mr.R.Muthaian (R2 & R3)
Government Advocate
Cross Objection No.83 of 1999:
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by District Collector,
South Arcot-Vallalar District,
at Cuddalore.
2.The Special Tahsildar, No.15, Land Acquisition (L.P.) Neyveli-2, South Arcot-Vallalar District. .. Appellants. Versus 1. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, Neyveli-607 801. 2.Abdullah Rowthar .. Respondents.
Prayer: Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 24.8.1993, made in A.S.No.143 of 1991, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 22.4.1991, made in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif, Virudhachalam.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Muthaian
Government Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.N.Nithyanandam (R1)
Mr.R.Subramanian (R2)
COMMON ORDER
The second appeal, in S.A.No.643 of 1994, has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 24.8.1993, made in A.S.No.143 of 1991, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 22.4.1991, made in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif, Virudhachalam.
2. The third defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the suit, who is the first respondent in the present second appeal, in S.A.No.643 of 1994, had filed the suit for the reliefs of declaration of title, for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the defendants therein.
3. Based on the evidence available, the trial Court had declared the title of the plaintiff in the suit property and had also directed the defendants in the suit to calculate and grant the compensation to the plaintiff, in respect of the suit land. However, the trial Court had declined to grant the relief of recovery of possession, permanent injunction and the other reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff, by its judgment and decree, dated 22.4.1991, made in O.S.No.1363 of 1982.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 22.4.1991, the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, the third defendant in the suit, had filed an appeal on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, in A.S.No.143 of 1991. Similarly, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Special Tahsildar, the defendants 1 and 2, respectively, in the suit, in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, had also filed an appeal before the Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, in A.S.100 of 1991. The first Appellate Court, by a common judgment and decree, dated 24.8.1993, had confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 22.4.1991, made in O.S.No.1363 of 1982.
5. Thereafter, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, the third defendant in the suit and the appellant in the first Appeal, in A.S.No.143 of 1991, had filed the present second appeal before this Court, in S.A.No.643 of 1994, to set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, dated 24.8.1993, made in A.S.No.143 of 1991. However, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Special Tahsildar, the appellants in A.S.No.100 of 1991, had not filed any second appeal. Instead they had chosen to file a Cross Objection in the second appeal, in S.A.No.643 of 1994, preferred by Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. The Cross Objection filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Special Tahsildar has been numbered, as Cross Objection No.83 of 1999.
6. At this stage of the hearing of the second appeal, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that there may not be a necessity for this Court to decide the second appeal, on its merits, in view of the fact that Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, the appellant in the second appeal, in S.A.No.643 of 1994 and the first respondent in the said appeal, who was the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, had agreed to settle the matter, amicably, before the Lok Adalat, which has been recorded as follows:
“Though the case was adjourned so many times, the defendants 1 and 2 are not in a position to settle the matter. But the plaintiff and the third defendant agreed to settle the matter on the following terms.
The plaintiff is entitled, in view of the decree passed by the lower court, the amount as fixed by the Supreme Court reported in JT 1999(9) SC 524. Both the parties agreed that the land acquired are irrigated dry lands and the Supreme Court has fixed the amount of compensation payable to the land owners at Rs.82,000/- per acre. The parties have also agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court till the date of payment @ 10 =%.
2. Though the third defendant and the plaintiff agreed for the above terms, the other defendants are not agreeing for the settlement. Hence, the matter is posted before the Court for further orders.”
7. Mr.N.Nithyanandam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and Mr.R.Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, in the second appeal, had submitted that the Cross Objection, in Cross Objection No.83 of 1999, filed by the second and third respondent, in the second appeal, in S.A.No.643 of 1994, is not maintainable.
8. The learned counsels had submitted that even though divergent views were prevailing, with regard to the maintainability of such cross objections being filed by the parties, who are the respondents in the second appeals, it has been submitted that the matter has been settled, finally, in the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court, reported in Venkateswarlu V. Ramamma (1950 (I) MLJ 54) and the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, in Panna Lal V. State of Bomba and others (AIR 1963 SC 1516).
9. It has been further stated that the second and the third respondents, namely, the State of Tamilnadu and the Special Tahsildar, have no conflict of interests, with the appellant in the present second appeal, namely, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and therefore, the cross objection filed by them is not maintainable in law.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents in the second appeal had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. In such circumstances, the cross objection, in Cross Objection No.83 of 1999, is held as not maintainable, in view of the decisions cited supra. Hence, it stands dismissed.
11. In view of the dismissal of the cross objection and in view of the fact that the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, and the third defendant therein, who are the first respondent and the appellant in the present second appeal, respectively, had agreed to settle the matter on the following terms:
“The plaintiff is entitled, in view of the decree passed by the lower court, the amount as fixed by the Supreme Court reported in JT 1999(9) SC 524. Both the parties agreed that the land acquired are irrigated dry lands and the Supreme Court has fixed the amount of compensation payable to the land owners at Rs.82,000/- per acre. The parties have also agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court till the date of payment @ 10 =%.”
Accordingly, the second appeal is decreed on such terms as noted above. The agreement entered into by the parties shall form part of the decree. No costs.
csh
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Virudhachalam
2. The District Munsif, Virudhachalam.
3. The District Collector,
State of Tamil Nadu,
South Arcot-Vallalar District,
at Cuddalore.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
No.15, Land Acquisition (L.P.)
Neyveli-2,
South Arcot Vallalar District